CONVINCING CONTRARIANS: Scientists attempt to win over climate change doubters.
Image: Courtesy of NOAA
LONDON -- David Stainforth is a brave man. His mission is to try to remove some of the confusion over the climate debate by explaining why uncertainty has to be a part of the computerized climate models that scientists use to forecast the expected impacts of climate change, including more violent storms as well as more flooding and droughts.
Stainforth, a climate modeler and senior research fellow at the London School of Economics, hopes that by coming clean on the degree of difficulty in making such predictions, he and his fellow climate scientists will find it easier to make -- and win -- the argument that prompt action now is not only necessary but the far cheaper alternative to inaction.
"Governments and people want certainty about what will happen with climate change, so scientists tend to turn to climate modeling. But the models are wrong in so many ways because there are so many uncertainties and unknowns built into them," Stainforth told ClimateWire here at the Royal Academy's recent annual Summer Science Exhibition.
"The reason is that they are just that, models, not reality. The bottom line is that they give a quite useful message from science to the adaptation community. But it is all relative and hedged about with qualifications. They give likelihoods not certainties, ranges of probabilities, not absolutes. That is where the discussion then must start, not end," he added.
It is a bold step to take at a time when the climate skeptics appear to be making the most of the continuing public confusion and denial over the issues shown in repeated polls in the United States and United Kingdom. Skeptics have taken advantage of the revelations of scientific infighting with the leaked emails from the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia in late 2009. They have also pointed to evidence of some sloppy science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assert that the feared results of climate change may be more fiction than science.
Take that, add the diplomatic bickering and backsliding in international climate change talks, then fold in the news of the continuing global economic crisis and reports that renewable energy will drive up energy costs. You will get a sense that what Stainforth is attempting is a very hard sell.
The 'trouble' with climate models
"You can explain in five or 10 minutes why we need to do something about climate change -- and do it without using climate models. But it is far harder to persuade people of the degree and speed of what needs to be done without the models, and that is where the trouble starts," said Stainforth.
"Governments and the media demand certainty. They don't want uncertainties and probabilities. For example, all our models predict wetter winters and warmer summers, but they are far less certain about wetter or drier summers, and that has major implications for the siting and size of flood defenses," he explained, referring to dams and levees.
"Climate scientists have moved a long way beyond discussing whether climate change is a threat to our societies and economies. That is settled. But that is not to say they do not still disagree about a lot of things like the design of the models and the degree of change," he added.
He remains hopeful that the non-scientific public will understand the strong consensus among climate scientists that makes the remaining bickering look small. "There is uncertainty, but there is also probability. By showing and discussing the degree of each in public and with the public, we hope to involve them and therefore get out of the loop and move forward."
Stainforth's mission is backed by an array of groups including the United Kingdom's Natural Environment Research Council, the Economic and Social Research Council and the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy as well as the London School of Economics. There is also the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment -- headed by Lord Nicholas Stern, whose report on the economics of climate change in 2006 electrified governments worldwide on the issue.
See what we're tweeting about
86 Comments
Add CommentI think most people skeptical are skeptical of man's contribution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAttack of the dinosaurs - @ goejellyroll
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, it does seem that geojellyroll is an old school geologist. He can't really have had close contact with science as practiced in the universities of this world today. Which are pretty much stuffed to the gills wit modeling and subsequent judgement calls etc. across disciplines.
Anyway, just sitting around blathering away in circles is not appropriate behaviour given the fact (yup) that major changes are afoot in today's climate, and hard knowledge thereof is - and always will be due to complexity - dear.
You can't just sit there with your fingers in your ears and keep on singing your favorite song to yourself - and expect to be met with understanding or respect.
@geojellyroll: If the modelling tells us that the Andean glaciers feeding western South America are going to dry up in X number of years, the leap from there to talking about socioeconomic impact is not a leap at all. More like a baby step. The science doesn't tell you exactly what the impacts will be, but it underlies all that subsequent economic analysis. So what's your problem?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou see, science today isn't about science. It's about agendas and funding. We might never know what on earth is going on (pun intended) because everyone's scientific theory is shrouded in money and ideology. Gone are the days when scientists just gave you the facts. Scientists are now kept around as puppets to "prove" that the inane course of actions that politicians want to do are warranted. If a scientist wants to keep his funding he better say what the politician wants or else it gets cut, along with his credibility and career.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Damarch
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what is your explanation for most of the US climate scientists, or climate "scientists" in your parlance, sticking to their guns during W's reign?
Care to provide proof of funding and the resultant agenda and / or scientific results that came from funding? I mean, the lobbyist for the "man is causing climate change" crowd must have a lot of money to persuade EVERY major scientific body in the world that humans are altering the climate with greenhouse gas emissions. I'd just like to see a balance sheet or who is funding whom, that's all, not some conspiracy theory that might involve the U.N., the Rothschilds or whatever and the commie plot to put fluoride in our drinking water!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI mean, I can do the same for climate skeptics:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=american-climate-skeptic-soon-funde
So, where's the money?
"Baloney. What does this have to do with climate SCIENCE? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight back at YOU. Where is your science, or evidence to support that statement?
You say "baloney" - and people should believe that, but decades of science, by tens of thousands of scientists in many different countries all coming to the same basic conclusion is dismissed out of hand.
You are no scientist.
Before Einstein formulated the properties of the photon light was postulated to travel in an "ether". Papers, experiments, professorial positions - real money - were all focused on discovering the the physical properties of this "ether." Once Einstein's papers were published this "ether" research disappeared from science. Real proof caused this change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow the same may be said about this "belief" that has developed around the complex problem of global warming. Science is not religion. Science requires solutions. Until an equation is developed to accurately predict the weather more than seven days in advance is found all this blog about the future is just bits and bytes.
Lighten up. The history of the world has been dominated by ice ages. I hate the cold weather maybe this warming period may be extended a while. Does anyone really think human habitation may hold off galciation? Really...
The bulk of adverse effects Humans have on our planet is through overcrowding. This leads to malnutrition, some ethic groups attempting to dominate others, keep scarce resources for their kinsmen etc. Therefore a good education, not endoctrination by one or another religious sect, is the remedy. A good education will help people find solutions to their problems, such as family planning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes sir. Well spoken.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not believe it is the job of the climate guy to convince every Tom. Dick and geologist out there. At the same time, because of limited technology and scientific data to prove other wise, the science community used to believe the earth was flat and sat on four elephants that sat on a sea turtle and that the universe revolved and the earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is more likely to tell about the cause and effects of climate control with any real certainty after the fact rather than before. And even then it will still be debated by the few survivors.
Damarch: " Scientists are now kept around as puppets to "prove" that the inane course of actions that politicians want to do are warranted"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue. It feeds on itself. Chicken little scenarios. Create the fear to justify the funding.
Fortunately less people today are willing to drink the Kool-Aid and chant along with the Global Warming groupies.
birdofprey: "I do not believe it is the job of the climate guy to convince every Tom. Dick and geologist out there'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe job of the climate guy shouldn't be to convince anyone. That's not what science is all about. The role of science to pursue knowlwedge. the 'economic' consequences of climate change are venturing out of science into the field of hocus pocus. It's fear mongering that has zip to do with the results of the pros or cons of a climate model.
When climatologists are physically threatened and have their words twisted around to meet political and economic goals, they had better think about convincing people. What's the point of science if people ignore it because of a deliberate misinformation campaign to obscure any inconvenient conclusions it draws?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissault: You are obviously not well educated so I understand your lack of science understanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is not convenient or inconvenient but just 'is'. any concept you use such as 'inconvenient' is outside the realm if science. Convenient and inconvenient are normative values.
Climate science is not about what is convenient or inconvenient anymore than the physical properties of gravity are convenient or inconvenient.
Use GAMES? Are you kidding me? The 'Confidence in Climate' is wasting time building games to convince the general public that their earth is warming? What has the world come to? Did Einstein make a jigsaw puzzle to convince the general public that gravity bends light?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@geojellyroll, you are equivocating. You are mistaking the job of science for the job of scientists. Of course science doesn't care about who believes it or what impact it has on people. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the role scientists play in informing policy. In that respect it is very important for the scientist to communicate his/her findings to the layperson involved in policy making. Failing to do so results in bad policy which is bad for everyone. And despite what you think, economics and other social sciences are sciences and often depend on other fields of science to inform how they make predictions. Are you really that dense that you can't appreciate the economic impact of changing climate on cost lines and agriculture? Are you really that scientifically illiterate that you believe we are completely incapable of making some predictions about what will happen? Sure there is a margin of error, have you ever heard of best and worst case scenarios? As far as I know geology can't predict with much accuracy when an earthquake will occur. I guess geology is not science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou love to spout on about how sciam is not science. Well so far you have demonstrated clearly that you don't understand sciam, science or the role of science in modern society. So why should any of us care about the opinion of someone so clueless? Seriously, you need to find a place where you don't sound like a bitter old ludite.
@petemicus, thanks for taking the time to share with us how little you understand the issue. How long have you studied climate science? I'm sure you can count that high on your fingers, don't even need your toes. And so what exactly did you think you could contribute to this discussion with your vast minutes of carefully biased research?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeojellybrains is partially right. This isn't about science it is about politics and the political opportunists of low moral character who think they can manipulate the ignorant masses with conspiracy theories and junk science. Sad thing is, they are right.
@dkrause, "The 'Confidence in Climate' is wasting time building games to convince the general public that their earth is warming?" have you forgot that we in the west mostly live in democracies? How are we going to make effective policy if the general public is not on board? I wish issues of this nature did not fall whim to the ignorant masses but it does so that means we need to make games, pretty pictures and popup books to convince joe sixpack that global climate change is something he should invest his tax dollars into fixing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Schmitt. It is obvious to the causal observer your background in science ended your second year in high school. The current level of global warming research is observational science. My contribution is this discussion is to remind this forum no predictive weather model exists beyond seven days. Debate on this subject is naive at best. Dude lighten up...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, science has replace orthodox religion as the "moral and ethics" compass of the entire world. Science more than any other institution is being look at to solve the worlds problems by advising world leaders about options pertaining to our future. Not unless you are telling me that true science is about telling us a train is coming but they don't really care if know one listening!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToday's Science has become the new church. The other is more and more just a place to ease a person's guilt, or to be put in a temporary state of bliss. It's a shame like many religions, all I ever hear is so many scientists arguing rather than seeking and finding a common truth. There are too many problems to seek knowledge merely for knowledge's sake.
Drause: "Did Einstein make a jigsaw puzzle to convince the general public that gravity bends light?'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. He also didn't comment on how this observation impacted the social or economic plight of mankind. Science and agenda should not mix.
7 days maybe for local "weather". We're talking global, long range "climate" models. Please read up on the difference...Dude.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother title for this article: "Can a Candid Climate Modeler SCARE Contrarians?" In fact, the modeler cannot scare most people. Earth's climate is self-correcting, but scare-mongers continue to insist that climate is so sensitive that humans can alter Earth's temperature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEarth's climate is self-stabilizing. For example, as Earth warms, more vapor circulates towards the poles of the Earth. This causes an increase in ice and snow at the poles, which causes more reflection of sunlight, which prevents overheating.
Self-correcting systems oppose change. This means sea level must rise as the Earth cools. This causes more sunlight to be absorbed by water and land (less reflection by ice).
Vapor content of air increases very rapidly with temperature increase. But the rate of ice melting increases linearly with temperature increase.
Actually, Professor Einstein didn't need puzzles and games to promote his various theories. The popular press made him a rock star. It was a little different with the scientific community. There was a lot of fairly rancorous debate over his ideas until proof was provided for his prediction that gravity would bend light was provided by detailed observation of the apparent positions of stars during eclipses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for mixing science and policy - well, Dr. Einstein advised FDR that the US had better get busy putting e=mC2 to work or the Germans might beat us to the atom bomb. He then turned around and argued against the development of the hydrogen bomb. Kind of a moot point by then though - the genie was already out of the bottle...
It seems to me that if science finds that some substance, say cigarette smoke, causes cancer, then science has a responsibility to apprise the public of that fact. The correlative (observational) finding of the carcinogenic properties of tobacco smoke ultimately saved millions of lives, even though it was years before anyone could demonstrate exactly how that occurred.
Thousands of scientists from many nations and divers disciplines concur that a) the climate is warming, b) it is warming very rapidly and, c) that the production of certain gasses, notably carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere by human activities is the cause. Isn't it reasonable that they should climb down from those Ivory Towers and try to warn the public that that light at the end of the tunnel may well be an oncoming train?
You seem to be saying, here and elsewhere, that you know better than they what's going on. You must be one helluva scientist!
Or is it perhaps that all those other scientists from around the world are in on some grand conspiracy to - what? Create a New World Order? Swindle the American taxpayer? Destroy US enterprise and bring our country to it's knees?
Please, enlighten us.
As far as it goes you're right, jelly roll: science, first and foremost is a search for knowledge. That search starts, and ends, of course, with observation. But there's much more to science than just the search for knowledge. Science is a tool. Science can be applied for the betterment, or to the detriment of the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am minded of the many scientists who warned planners, policy makers and politicians (3 Ps) that if the levees around New Orleans were not strengthened that there would be a catastrophe. They even held a big disaster drill, a game if you will, called Hurricane Pam. Really. Look it up. But the scientists couldn't predict just when, or quite how the calamity would unfold, so the 3 Ps patted the scientists on the head and went about business as usual.
Oh Well...
It's the Illuminati - they've teamed up with the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons to take over the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNever heard of 'applied science'? Geochemists work out how supercritical fluids interact with the Earth's crust and miners can then better locate cryptic ore bodies. Scientists figure out how gravity (and a whole bunch of other stuff) works and we put men on the Moon. Scientists figure out the properties of semiconductors and we get the internet so we can amuse ourselves with pointless argumentation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience for science's sake is all well and good, but it is of little practical use if it is not APPLIED to the real world.
Do you really think the models for the global climate are more accurate than local models? If the local model can not be predicted from the global model than the equation is flawed. Simple logic. Wake up. You are being lied to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispetemicus - Yes! Resoundingly yes! You are making a fairly common mistake. The smaller your regime of prediction, the greater your variability. That is why we can usually make some pretty good predictions for the US as a whole (i.e. we expect a wet/dry year, hotter/colder, etc.).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can tell you much about pressure and temperature, but if you want me to predict how the constituent molecules that drive this "average" we call temperature and pressure will behave... well, much much more difficult.
Of course models are flawed. That is why they are called "models". Where we don't know the process well enough, best assumptions are made, with error bounds applied. We run the models, make predictions, compare against measurements, and refine to processes and "equations" so that next time they make a better prediction.
Simple logic. Wake up. You are being lied to.
Cassandra with a mouse
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispetemicus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because you repeat illogic again and again, does not make it stick. Even a PERFECT global model will not make local predictions. It is not designed to do so, and to try to get this is like using a hammer to drive in a wood screw.
You are conflating weather and climate. Weather is highly variable, climate is much more robust (in essence it is a longer term average of weather).
A global model may, in the end, result in a simple time series of expected global temperature increases and variances given certain human drivers. This is oversimplified, but can be illustrative.
So how exactly would you like to get local numbers from this? Even if you tried to tease out these numbers from the internal calculations, at best you would get an average and deviation over the long term, a far cry from the "local predictions" you seem to imply must be made by global models.
A model is not "an" equation. It is a complex set of algoriths. Most of these have a ton of equations. These are well understood.
Where the science comes in is two-fold. Understanding the inputs and outputs is the first key. Even if you think you know all the inputs - this gets pretty complicated at times, as you may have correlations, so often it is a highly multivariate input set. Computationally this can be challenging - so often, as is done in almost all applied sciences - some "simplifying" assumptions are made - which sacrifices a small measure of accuracy for a huge improvment in computability. Great pains are taken to "bound" the introduced error.
The other part, and this is also where much science comes in, is not just the correlations between inputs, but the correlations between output and input (i.e. feedback).
So the main places a model can introduce inaccuracy:
1 - not accounting for all the inputs
2 - not accounting for feedback and correlations
3 - not having sufficient depth of input data to drive the model.
4 - not being able to predict human driven inputs accurately (i.e. CO2 emissions, etc.)
Believe it or not, scientists are actually pretty smart cookies. They really do take all of this into account. And despite your claims, scientists don't have a corner on the morally bankrupt market.
So, to repeat your annoying tag line:
Simple logic. Wake up. You are being lied to.
Re” “Stainforth, a climate modeler and senior research fellow at the London School of Economics…”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat’s the difference between this offering and that of recent vintage?:
Economists Find Flaws in Federal Estimate of Climate Damage"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=economists-find-flaws-federal-estimate-climate-damage&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20110713
comment 41
Nice try.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. The models are not as accurate as you would like them to be. That is a FAR cry from your "completely fail" line. More to the point - the models generate confidence numbers associated with their predictions. Which is why you hear the predictions with a fairly large range (say 2-4 degrees C). That does not make the models invalid. It just means there are many improvements that need to be made, and much refinement to the measurements we take and their accuracy/validity. Then we can adjust and prepare for the changes.
You ask the rhetorical question on why these are used. We use them because they DO work to within their specified variances - irrespective of your strawman challenge. And they are the only tool we have to make predictions. To not use them banishes us from ever learning and being able to predict climate.
Hold on to your $100K, pokey:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Well, I think your weak, little argument just got a big booboo from the REAL scientists running skeptical science dot com. Your wager is ridiculous because you're missing the issue ENTIRELY. The debate isn't about whether temp and rainfall is going to be X amount in Y area at Z date, it's that the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE (you know, from GLOBAL WARMING) will go up ON AVERAGE, volatility in weather pattern will increase ON AVERAGE (more and stronger storms, longer and hotter heat waves / droughts) and a certain temp increase & associated sea level rise means huge, mostly predictable consequences for human civilization.
Wow, and the mainstream press puts deniers like you on the same footing as REAL scientists because...?
Let me pose these questions for the deniers to answer because I’m a little baffled:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. How come the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling? Human-induced CO2 warming is the only way to explain this.
2. How come record high temp readings are outpacing record low temp readings by 2 to 1? If it wasn't warming, how could this be possible?
3. How come nights and winter temps are warming faster than summer and daytime temps? The ONLY way to explain this is CO2-caused warming.
4. How come we're measuring more infrared radiation energy coming back down from the atmosphere, in the EXACT wavelengths that CO2 and CH4 respond to btw, AND we're measuring LESS infrared radiation escaping from the Earth in those EXACT SAME wavelengths?
5. How do you deniers propose to deal with Ocean Acidification, Climate Change's MORE evil twin?
6. Finally, how in the world can you believe that the U.N., ALL the major scientific bodies of the world, a large portion of Fortune 500 companies, the world's scientific and academic institutions and about 50% of the U.S. public is somehow deluded and / or in a conspiracy to ummmm....make you waste less energy and produce less pollution? For all those "supposed" scientists on this board that are deniers, have you ever hears of Occam's Razor?
Source, which is really a condensation of 60 published, peer-reviewed papers:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf
Actually, it is easier to predict that the climate in, say NW Europe, will be thus and such in 50 years than to predict whether it will rain in Cleveland in 2 weeks. Well, not 'easier', but the model skills are getting pretty damn good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe models hindcast the past few thousand years quite nicely and have held very close to the instrumental record since their modern iterations. And the models continue to improve. Of course, proof of that last statement involves invoking various hockey stick-looking data plots and apparently trotting out anything resembling those kinds of curves, ie curves that reflect reality, is no longer allowed in 'serious' climate debate...
@petemicus, you are as dense as they come. You don't even know the difference between climate and weather. What are you thinking? You must know that you have not taken even a moment to understand this subject. Do you really think you can B.S. your way through it? Show some humility. Please lookup dunning-kruger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPetimicus: "Do you really think the models for the global climate are more accurate than local models? If the local model can not be predicted from the global model than the equation is flawed"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso true. Take the same variables and then claim to know how to give them weight to determine 'climate' is even more of a folly.
In theory a climate model might be useful. in reality, nobody knows what variables to use in that model or what mathematical weight to give them. Garbage in and garbage out.
@pokerplyer, do you have anything more than blatant lies to back up your B.S.? "Now most climate scientists do not agree with the conclusions of the IPCC reports and that is evident in the current published data" please show us the evidence you used to reach that conclusion. Or are you just another low life who thinks that if he repeats a lie often enough it becomes true?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert S: "@petemicus, you are as dense as they come. You don't even know the difference between climate and weather. What are you thinking? You must know that you have not taken even a moment to understand this subject'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBaloney. The irony is dripping. The next time there is a heat wave, flood, tornado or whatever the Global Warming cultists will all be clapping their hands in glee and pointing to this 'weather' as further proof of global warming.
@geojellyroll, well I guess it is easier to make up lies than provide proof. I have never once seen you provide any proof. It certainly makes it clear to the rest of us what the deniers are about when they all turn out to be such consummate liars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@geojellyroll, nice try at deflection. The fact is he was claiming that problems predicting the weather equated to problems predicting climate. You are an incredibly irrational person for someone who claims to be a geologist. Are you off your meds by chance?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn regards to linking specific weather events to global warming it is a mixed bag. There is no way to correlate a specific event with a change in climate. On the other hand when you go from an average of 3 days a year above 30, as in my part of the world, to more than 10 on average in a short period of time one can attribute part of that trend to the change in climate. I have not heard any scientist say, this tornado, storm, etc. was caused by global warming, but some have said that the increase in severe weather may be partly caused by global climate change. If you can provide any evidence that a scientist has claimed that a specific event was caused by global warming now would be that opportunity to demonstrate you are not full of crap. Otherwise it is reasonable to assume you are lying yet again.
Still you have not provided any proof of your hypothesis, if there is one. None. You call the AGW crowd cultists but it is quite clearly you who BELIEVES without any evidence. Just a sad old troll trapped in a world changing too fast for his dementia plagued mind to understand.
Tsk tsk Robert. From your poor use of language I will forgive your rampblings since English is obviously not your first language.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPokerplyer: : "People who actually understand the issue are not saying additional CO2 does not warm the atmosphere somewhatthe issue is how much how fast and what that will do to specific countries.'
agreed. the climate models claim some Ouija board ability to predict. The cultists who 'believe' in the magic run around googling evidence to support what they 'want' to believe.
@geojellyroll, "From your poor use of language I will forgive your rampblings since English is obviously not your first language." obviously not yours either unless rampblings is a new word of which I haven't heard. Even after correcting for spelling the sentence makes no sense. Nice try at another deflection though. Again you have refused to provide any proof. No matter how many times you lie, it will never become truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert. Deep breaths will mitigate your agitation. Warm milk can also dampen your irritability
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...skeptical science-routinely deletes comments from people who post who do not agree with the sites positions..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you mean to say by this that their policy of keeping unwanted distractions and industry propagandists out of their discussions of reality somehow degrades the quality of the actual science they are posting?
Somewhere around here I seem to recall a post stating that science does not run on polls and opinion - or some such. How do you reconcile your complaint about Skeptical Science's editorial policies and that post?
SS does, after all, base their articles on referenced scientific findings.
pockerplyer -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving thought about your comment quoted above and my response, it occurs to me that I have seen a number of dissenting comments posted at Skeptical Science, though I must admit none of the rabid ad hominem or blatantly political kind so prevalent around here.
Perhaps this is to what you refer:
"Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted." (From the comments policy statement at Skeptical Science)
Wow, still ZERO proof of anything you say. No wonder they delete your comments off of skepticalscience, you add NOTHING to the debate but groundless accusations and a constructed fantasy land of your own making that totally ignores the data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt looks like the real crux of the problem is that we disagree about what the Earth's climate sensitivity is. Your "source", Judith Curry & co., seem to think it's close to 1C. The 97% of climate scientists actively publishing on the subject, you know, the people who would know the most on this subject, seem to think it's closer to 3C. If 97 cardiologists said I needed to have bypass surgery and 3 Judy Curry-types said just to pop some aspirin and eat more fried cheese, I would schedule the surgery and start eating more veggies ASAP. Besides, the past climate of the Earth cannot be explained unless climate sensitivity (to ANY forcing equivalent to doubled CO2) is around 3C. A climate sensitivity of 1C just doesn't mesh with the data.
Also, ocean pH has been falling, this HAS BEEN OBSERVED, you can't DENY it and the changes are disrupting marine ecosystems.
I'm still looking for published data that you promise. btw.
sault, Temperature data collection techniques are so inconsistent over time as be ridiclous. The various methods introduce enough accumulation of error to cause any model to questioned. Data interpretation and data politization is much more the controversy with Global Warming. No commonly agreed upon sources exist. Insulting folks rudely does not make it your sources more valid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about, just for once, you support your claims with something like evidence...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't that what this whole blog has danced around? Tearing down each others sources?! Few credible sources exist, thus name calling and funnier replies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne can distinguish the legitimate person concerned about climate change with the Global Warming groupie The groupie 'gets angry' that you don't accept 'the Truth'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo more science to support a position so the groupie reverts to name calling.
These groupies would be wise to follow the advice of Joe Friday: "just the facts, Ma'am".
Here's an overview of how the average global temperature is calculated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_1A.html
The basic technology for recording temperature (thermometers) has been around for a while now and has often been operated by trained technicians - governments, colonial officials, navies, even scientists.
Over the last 30 years we've added satellites to the mix. The record gets deeper and more extensive every day. Confidence limits are accounted for. So where's the evidence of gross inaccuracy?
@geojellyroll, "just the facts, Ma'am" well where are they? I have repeatedly asked you to back up your claims with facts and you have repeatedly tried to divert attention away from your complete ignorance of the subject. You are an unbelievable hypocrite. You accuse sciam of not being scientific but you have never offered any science to back up your views, you say "The groupie 'gets angry' that you don't accept 'the Truth'" but you are the one who posts accusations against sciam every time they publish an article that challenges your world view. And now you have the nerve to suggest it is the scientific community that is not accepting the facts!? You are the lowest of the low. A right wing fanatic incapable of separating his ideology from reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@pokerplyer, denying the facts does not make them go away. We have good long term data. The data indicates that the current trends cannot be accounted for by short term variability. Regardless, even short term variability has causes. You are so ignorant of the facts that you don't even understand the simplest concepts. Events have causes. If an event happened yesterday, it doesn't mean that if it happens tomorrow it has the same cause. You rank amateurs think it is sufficient to point to an event in the past and say, it must be the same thing, nothing to look at here, please move along. Well you are wrong! Whatever the temperature is today, high or low, it has a reason for being that way. The AGW theory is the best theory we have for explaining current climate. AGW deniers have nothing. YOU have nothing. Now unless you can actually provide conclusive proof that the current climate has another cause, please climb back under your rock or at least try to get yourself educated. Start with basic logic and science because you have no clue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Few credible sources exist" again with the lies. You really think that making up B.S. is enough to get by on? Thousands of scientists across the globe is not a "few credible sources". A bunch of right wing nut jobs without any scientific evidence is "no credible sources". Why don't you try this for a change, first understand a subject, then have an opinion? You sound like a complete idiot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're operating under some very flawed logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLocal weather is much more variable than global climate and more difficult to predict. Predicting local weather based on global models is like trying to predict a specific person's height based on the average height of the entire population. The bigger the data set (in this case -- geographic) the more accurate the model. This is all basic statistics and probability.
Karagi. You may not be correct. See the link below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://books.google.com/books?id=M-D8SmWZrLMC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=computer+size+grid+size+limits+global+warming&source=bl&ots=4Y3FJ3GMFu&sig=ISbCvBFyLjP57In7FxuOkuDD62A&hl=en&ei=u4spTvbiH5S4tgeilc3XAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Schmidty, Specious data can not be trusted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you have proof?
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm
I hope you're kidding. Do you even know what you're sending to back up your view???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe link you gave me is to the book "Global warming: the complete briefing".
This book completely agrees with the Global Warming scenarios you are argueing against. It also discusses the arguements against global warming and explains how these are disproved by science.
And to your point that global models are incorrect because they can't provide accurate local forecasts, it says exactly what I've been saying. Read on page 107 regarding climate models:
"Weather and climate on scales large compared to the grid size (300km) are described reasonably well (by the models). However, at scales comparable with the grid size, described as the regional scale, the results from global models posses serious limitations."
The grid size is a key factor. Smaller grids = more samples for the model but take much more computing power.
The purpose of these models is to forecast global average climatic affects not day to day local weather and they all point to an overall warming of the earth that's taking place at an alarming rate
This textbook points out the inaccuracy of current models. As a pro-global warming primer even this author comprehends the current computational limitations. Pg 110. Depends on your slant as to how it is interrepted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@petemicus, "Specious data can not be trusted," who other than deniers are calling it 'specious'? You choosing to attach a label to something doesn't make it true. The article you referenced does not prove AGW is not AGW. It has some questions about some ground stations but that doesn't invalidate all the data, and it doesn't invalidate any data that is not related to the subject of the article. It is not sufficient for you to point to one piece of data that is "questionable". You have to show that all the data that supports AGW is insufficient to substantiate the hypothesis. You haven't done that. Furthermore questions about your opponent's hypothesis do nothing, and let me stress this, do NOTHING to strengthen your hypothesis. The onus of proof is on you to prove your own hypothesis and I've seen no evidence that you even have a hypothesis. So once again, your complete ignorance of climate science and science in general has caused you to draw irrational conclusions and shown you to be nothing more than a fanatic that needs to have his world view validated. You are transparent man, I guess that comes from having no substance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@petemicus, "This textbook points out the inaccuracy of current models." well amazing you have discovered that models have limitations. But that shouldn't be surprising because, all models have limitations! The quantum mechanical model has limitation yet it makes very accurate predictions about subatomic particles. The Newtonian model has limitations yet all engineering is based on it. Again you demonstrate your own ignorance by making such an idiotic statement. Furthermore, the case for AGW is not only based on models but also observation. You might have known that if you read the article. How do you explain the consistency of all types of evidence, derived from thousands of scientists, from many countries? Because that is what you have to do to invalidate the AGW theory. But if you had any level of scientific literacy you would know that. Instead you are just a troll that has no clue about how clueless he is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaber I agree that population density and poor education, especially of women...and deniers...is a major problem. But that doesn't mean it is our only problem. Pollution is also a major issue, whether you are talking about fresh water, air, soil or climate. Pollution exacerbates the population problem. We have an increasing number of mouths to feed and climate change will make growing food more difficult. So don't make the mistake of myopic thinking, i.e. there is only one problem and we should only focus on that. Although a good education is a good place to start addressing all of humanity's problems. The fact that we have products of western education systems like petemicus, geojellyroll and pokerplyer is an absolute embarrassment. I would expect to find that level of ignorance in a third world slum not in the sciam comment section. How do democracies function properly if the people don't have enough sense to make informed decisions? Well I guess the US is the answer to that question - they don't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@petemicus, "This textbook points out the inaccuracy of current models." What inaccuracies? Whether average temperature will increase 2 degrees celcius or 4 degrees over the next few decades? That is your main beef? It's like a sailor worrying if the leak in his boat will result in him drowning in 5 minutes or 10 minutes instead of working to plug the leak. That's the state the world is in. We need to stop global warming regardless of whether or not the effects will gravely impact only our children or us too. (Fact is: it's hurting us and our ecosystem already.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert... you do know that jelly roll is just yanking your chain right? He has nothing to support his misguided opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We need to stop global warming regardless of whether or not the effects will gravely impact only our children or us too."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDidn't Al Gore say this statement at his Noble acceptance speech? Then he laughed all the way to bank. God Bless him hopes he makes another billion running this global warming farcus.
When the data being analyzed can not be trusted this statement is silly. The models being used to correlate against this data are equal to a jack-in-box. Adjust the boundry conditions, throw out inconvenient data, hit the enter key, receive the desired result, and publish another paper.
In the seventies the next glaciation period was publicized as beginning. Wait a decade or two and the media will make some other politician wealthy solving some other ficitional problem that enflames ones emotions.
Thank you.
Schmidty, Were you even alive in the seventies when the next glacial period was "...explain(ed) (by) the consistency of all types of evidence, derived from thousands of scientists, from many countries?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTurn off your television for a decade and the media will create another global weather catastrophe which cause you and all the other Chicken Littles to chant Al Gore's praises and throw rocks at police. You amuse me Schmidty with your ability to only consume what the media feeds you. Change your diet comrade, it is making you appear bloated.
Will somebody PLEASE explain to me what Al Gore has got to do with anything? Over paid and over weight?, yes. Climate scientist, no. Kill the messenger? So it would seem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, Al got a Nobel prize and Dubya didn't. So? Dubya was an arrogant unilateralist, precisely what the rest of the world hates the US for. Surprised?
The ice age hypothesis of the '70s was proposed by one man, Read Bryson, the 'Father of Modern Meteorology' and was subsequently espoused by some other scientists, largely on the basis of Professor Bryson's standing in his field. The idea was, on review, quickly debunked.
What about the fact that the current climate models recreate the last few thousand years of the Earth's climate don't you get? What about the fact that current climate models match, or underestimate, the modern instrumental record don't you get?
Are those models (all 22 of them) perfect? Of course not. Will they ever be perfect? Of course not. Does the existence of a contradicting hypothesis prove the conclusions of the accepted theory of climate change wrong? Of course not. Does a contravening hypothesis of climate change demand further investigation? Of course it does. Does that mean we should discard all planning based on current theory? NO!
Does your pinche opinion confound the peer reviewed scientific findings of thousands of trained experts in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, glaciology. limnology, geology, oceanology, climatology and statistics (to name a few)? - well, ummm, NO.
We (humanity) have a peek through a crack in time into the future and the view isn't all that pretty. We can act now, or we can wait till the future becomes the now and won't be taking excuses.
I invoke the Precautionary Principle.
Spaz, You do understand Dubya saved the world, right? History will show we are fighting WWIII. Dubya recgonized it first. Unilateralism saved your can. God Bless America.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming is big business. These "thousands of trained experts in the fields" have to eat and make a living. The only way to do so is study a subject that has funding. Any scientist that bucks the Global Warming hysteria is vilified because it will end the gravy train. William Gray - the leading prognosticator of tropical storms in the Atlantic Basin - is my example. His quote "Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way." Gray has said there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.
Further from this article...All information we know already, but is usually talked down by "Chicken Littlers". Who has the proof? One of these "thousands" of scientists that needs funding to get tenure and finds it in the Global Warming farcus or a professor upon whom Loyd's of London depends for forcasting.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4387552
The Earth does have natural cycles of cooling and warming - during the past 740,000 years there have been eight cycles with four ice ages.
The cycles appear to be tied to slight variations in the tilt of the Earth toward the sun.
During the last ice age - which ended about 10,000 years ago - Earth was on average about 4 degrees Fahrenheit cooler, and what is now Manhattan was buried under ice.
At some point the Earth will wobble on its axis again, setting the stage for an ice age.
And there is the Atlantic thermohaline current, a conveyor belt moving heat north on the surface and then dropping it to the ocean floor and heading back to the equator - a 1,200-year trip.
Changes in the current lead to changes in temperature. Somehow the models have to account for these natural variations too.
Gray believes that the warmer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are linked to a natural slowing in the thermohaline current, not the carbon dioxide.
Some of the models also show the current is slowing and that, along with warming oceans, adds to hurricane risks.
Thank you
petemicus. Do a little research please. Not interested? ok - let me refer you to a few facts regarding the so called "coming ice age"... a continuing lie that I should not try to disabuse you from believing - because it is quite apparent you *choose* to believe it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.boingboing.net/2011/07/22/lowercase-theories-u.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Dubya saved the world? Interesting notion. I wonder what the 'world' has to say about that...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis disingenuous conspiracy theory about climate scientists world wide only doing what they do because it's some kind of cash cow is a despicable insult to the entire scientific community. I find it telling that for all the money thrown into propaganda mills like the Heritage Foundation, the Cato 'Institute' and the US Chamber of Commerce, none have funded a legitimate study of this allegation. One might just as well say that all those grifting civil engineers are just making up stories about the crumbling infrastructure in the US to pay off their BMWs, or that malaria researchers are exaggerating the death toll in Sub Saharan Africa to make a quick buck. This line of argument bespeaks either pathetic naivete or gross political bias - or both...
Dr. Gray's contributions to the science of tropical weather, notably his discovery of the linkage between the ENSO and W Atlantic ans E Pacific hurricanes is noted and admired. His attribution of Global climate change to an undocumented slowing of the N Atlantic thermohaline conveyor (well known - the TH conveyor, not it''s speed - to effect the climate of eastern N America and NW Europe) remains unsupported.
Dr. Gray's anecdotal remarks about some kind of scientific McArthyism are just that - anecdotal (and insulting) remarks. If I go to a Republican (I, like my father before me, am a registered Republican) convention, I'm going to hear a lot of talk about how those dirty Liberals are ruining the country. If I show up at a Democratic convention, all the buzz will be about how those filthy Fascists are ruining the country. This is all no more than rank ideology. Dialectics. So it is with these tales of some kind of scientific pogrom against researchers whose work runs counter to current climate theories. Unfortunately there are some high profile individuals running around the anti-climate change circuit whose work relies more heavily on doctrine than real science. They cast a shadow on all the legitimate scientists whose work arguing against climate change might otherwise get a better reception.
Running out of room here...
@petemicus, you just don't seem to get bored with finding out how much of an idiot you are. The 50's cooling was caused by an increase in atmospheric particulates which briefly overwhelmed global warming. They weren't wrong about the observations, they just hadn't yet determined the cause. Of course this is ALSO something easily accessible to anyone with the ability to operate google. But for brain washed conspiracy theorists why look at the facts when the lies are much more believable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ildenizen, ya clearly jellybrains is nothing but a troll. Just board of him making idiotic comments as though he just dropped a bomb on sciam. Man, if they were to hold a village idiot competition the sciam trolls would clean up. Scary to think they have the vote.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue of our climate and various aspects of the planet's orientation to the Sun has been examined six ways from Wednesday.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing, from Milankovitch cycles, to the precession of the equinox, to the 11 year solar cycle can be hammered into shape to support an argument that explains more than a small percent of the scale and rate of climate disturbance we are witnessing today.
Looked at the trends of Arctic sea ice extent and volume lately? Try:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ and:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Spend some time. Have a good look around.
"They weren't wrong about the observations, they just hadn't yet determined the cause."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobby, We don't know the cause for certain now either. You KNOW that. Bob, science is about the process of discovery. And all your name calling defending half-baked theories is a personality defect. Grow up.
"This disingenuous conspiracy theory about climate scientists world wide only doing what they do because it's some kind of cash cow is a despicable insult to the entire scientific community."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpaz, Have you been to science grad school? Students go where the money is. Always have always will. Dollars are now spent 5-2 in favor of global warming research (google it yourself). If you want to study atmospheric science you do what you have to do. Dr. Gray is right.
"Nothing, from Milankovitch cycles, to the precession of the equinox, to the 11 year solar cycle can be hammered into shape to support an argument that explains more than a small percent of the scale and rate of climate disturbance we are witnessing today."
Spazy, This feeds right into Bobert's comment. Something is happening..."They weren't wrong about the observations, they just hadn't yet determined the cause." Hang in there a new theory will emerge. Until then keep bird watching...ice watching...drowned polar bear counting...all the same.
"Dr. Gray's anecdotal remarks about some kind of scientific McArthyism are just that - anecdotal (and insulting) remarks."
Spazy when string theory first started showing up at Symposiums grown men jeered. String guys have their own grand symposiums now. Before the bonfire at Texas A&M tradgically fell one engineer stood up to the rest of school and demonstrated the danger. He received threats of physical violence. He was right. This McCarthyist-like behavior in the Global Warming community (prevalent in very ill-mannered bloggers here too) is the same...simple human nature. Work hard on an idea and guard it. Science should be not politized. But it is on both sides...can you say IPCC?
"One might just as well say that all those grifting civil engineers are just making up stories about the crumbling infrastructure in the US to pay off their BMWs, or that malaria researchers are exaggerating the death toll in Sub Saharan Africa to make a quick buck. This line of argument bespeaks either pathetic naivete or gross political bias - or both..."
Spazy, You and I have different life experiences, and see things very differently. Was the "crumbling infrastructure" over-built in the first place with money no one had. 3% percent of the US population currently pays 60% of the total taxes. Because they can afford it?! Or are really patriotic?! Really. Who is naive? Think about it.
Thank you
From my perspective as a person who has worked for 30 years in the energy and water industries: I understand that we are rapidly returning to the climate the earth had 60 million years ago because of burning of fossil fuels. And, the rapid return to that climate is to fast for most species. And that whatever we do now it will take decades for that to have significant effect at preventing global temperature change. And to have enough effect that we prevent serious global temperature change we will have to spend about the same as the US defense budget every year for the next 25 years. And, burning fossil fuels is one of the reasons we are rich enough to support western (and eastern) society in the lifestyles we have become used to. We are unlikely to get society to make the changes needed to prevent climate change. Might be nice if someone figured out what parts of the planet actually will be better off with the climate of 60 million years ago (after all, Canada and Northern Europe are much better off with the warmer climate we have now versus 20,000 years ago).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@petemicus, "And all your name calling defending half-baked theories is a personality defect." once again back to the strategy of, lie often enough and maybe it will come true. The fact is there is mountains of evidence supporting AGW and nothing supporting an alternative explanation. But I guess that is why we call you deniers, because you simply deny the facts. You don't offer any proof, you just take a contrary position. And that is why I address you directly. You offer nothing else. If you had some evidence to discuss we could talk about that instead the best arguments you offer are idiotic statements that a first year science student would laugh at. So the problem here isn't the data and it isn't some global conspiracy. The problem is you. It is your ignorance and the fact that you are fundamentally irrational. It is you trying to advance an ideology instead of following the facts. It is you talking about things you do not understand because you have chosen not to understand them. The problem is you and other deniers like you. So that is why I direct my comments at you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You don't offer any proof, you just take a contrary position."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBobby. Any proof offered to Chicken Littlers - such as yourself - is simply not enough. So what do Chicken Littlers - such as yourself - do? Become verbal bullies. A very common tactic among Chicken Littlers...
The sky is falling Bobby!!!
Dr. Gray and I are both old enough to remember the McCarthy hearings. A drunken politician from Janesville Wisconsin tried to smooth over his failing career by destroying other people's lives. People were blackballed and never worked again. There were suicides.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor anyone to make the claim that this is happening in the scientific community today is irresponsible at best.
Yes, there are people who are criticized for their work, but from what I see they've earned that criticism for blatantly biasing their work. I've heard of no one who has reported reproducible work who has received more than the amount of flack that is usual in the science community when one produces results contrary to accepted theory. I've certainly not heard of anyone being blackballed.
Grad students are slaves, always have been, always will be. They may be one of the pillars of scientific endeavor, but they are exploited and sometimes, frankly, abused. In some institutions grad students are lucky if their advisers don't take credit for their work and relegate them to a minor rank in the credit for reports on research. It's unfortunate, but academia can be a pretty cut throat world.
As for research funding, if you can't write a good grant application, even to the point of disguising your personal bias, you need to go to one of the many classes offered every year on how to write grant proposals. If you can't respond successfully to an RFP, that's not the fault of the issuing institution.
You're right, science is about the search for knowledge. You get the grant, you do the work, you analyze the results and you write them up. Keeping in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - look at Alfred Wegener, or Charles Darwin for that matter - if you do your work right - like Albert Einstein did - it will be accepted.
There is a pervasive thread being nurtured by the industry-funded propaganda mills that climate scientists, be they climatologists, biologists, physicists or whatever, are conniving in some sort of grand cabal to, I don't know - elevate Al Gore to the position of emperor? What? You tell me.
petemicus... just a little off topic... but you should take care to accuse others of bad manners - and in the same post, display them. Sorta shoots yourself in the foot, if ya know what I mean :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you would have made a great debater. You quite apparently have an aptitude to defend the weaker position. The only difference is that most debates end with a winner and a loser - but this issue isn't about YOU or ME feeling good about being right, or getting the latest snip or zinger in. It is about confronting the science headlong. I think I have seen a couple of your arguments fairly well dismatled within this SciAm post. The real question is, are you honest enough to not repost the same arguments the next time around? If so, you again shoot yourself in the foot, as you prove that you are not interested in truth - but are set in your personal beliefs and in fact, will use any means (i.e. lies) to further them.
No need to reply. We will know if you can learn when we don't see these arguments reposted in the future.
"but you should take care to accuse others of bad manners - and in the same post, display them."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisil...I treat people like they treat me. Call me quirky in that way. Petey - me - is a bully to bullies. Be respectful and unremarkably I am too.
"I think you would have made a great debater."
il...I have been following sciam blogs a while. And have found over the years that only a handful of bloggers care to regularly participate. Most flee the verbal bullying. Even a single polite remark is high praise. Thank you.
"You quite apparently have an aptitude to defend the weaker position." "The 50's cooling was caused by an increase in atmospheric particulates which briefly overwhelmed global warming." "I think I have seen a couple of your arguments fairly well dismatled within this SciAm post."
il...Please forgive me as I have pasted one of Bobby's quotes in amongst yours. Many sciam bloggers are incredibly knowledgable in the most recent Global Warming press releases and have life experiences which lend emotion to very dry science. Yet often I find no time is given to let the most recent knowledge ferment. Bobby cited a particulate study describing the reason cooling occurred in 50s-60s&70s. I did not know this fact prior. When - chronologically - was this fact discovered? Recently? This hobby we have - some more avidly then others - of following global warming is much more intellectually stimulating than soap operas. Yet when both are viewed ambiently emotions rule. Should Hope marry Beau or which data, boundary value or simplification for which model is valid? When looked at without the benefit of time one can not know. Yet of course we know after 30 years, Hope is the only one for Beau. Time told us. What will time tell us about the many different models? Should politicians controlling funding for scientific research while dealing with an unstable petroleum supply be viewed sceptically when a majority of the funding is distributed to prove - see IPCC - Global Warming? Spaz thinks they can. My life experience says otherwise.
"are you honest enough to not repost the same arguments the next time around...as you prove that you are not interested in truth"
il...So what is the truth...Of course Beau should be with Hope. And should you continue to be so blooming arrogant with evolving science, then yes I will "remind" you equivalently.
Thank you.
"elevate Al Gore to the position of emperor?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpaz. All kidding aside...Elvis and Al Gore represent absolute genius to me. Both recognized their moment in history and utilized their God-given talents to their utmost. Elvis is the"King of Rock-n-Roll", and Al is the "King of Global Warming" living in a mansion that consumes the most energy in the state of Tennesse...a minor detail..and of course you know the often rented religious hymn for which he won the Noble prize.."Amazing Graceful hockey stick graph". Only the "Pet Rock" was a greater marketing achievement. Can I get a witness! Ha-ugh!
"For anyone to make the claim that this is happening in the scientific community today is irresponsible at best." "I've heard of no one who has reported reproducible work who has received more than the amount of flack that is usual in the science community when one produces results contrary to accepted theory." "It's unfortunate, but academia can be a pretty cut throat world."
Spaz. Things that make you go hmmmm...politics and science...notice the use of word "deniers" used in the link/article below and by used in sciam blogs by Bobby - a bunch. Why use that word unless one is trying to provoke? Which of the grants going to "non global warming scientists" were disrupted by this effort? This article supports global warming. You believe the Precautionary Principle should be invoked? By these political scientists?
http://www.mlive.com/news/us-world/index.ssf/2010/11/climate_scientists_plan_campai.html
"There is a pervasive thread being nurtured by the industry-funded propaganda mills that climate scientists, be they climatologists, biologists, physicists or whatever, are conniving in some sort of grand cabal"
Spaz. It is a combination of many different factions creating a mill of propanda. Mainstream media polarizes the Global Warning debate. Funding distribution by Congress polarizes of Global Warming debate. Our President liberally distributing stimulus funds for awful battery powered car development polarizes the Global Warming debate. You hit the nail on the head by invoking Darwin. Name another theory that has polarized as much. Extraordinary proof is required - more than observational science describing a change in bird migration patterns. Really. Change a pillar of civilization - petroleum - because of annual polar ice varying? Emotion vs. the actual dry science of Global Warming. Emotion wins every time. Cabal? Probably informally.
Thanks Spaz.
@petemicus, I called you irrational and you responded with a red herring and an appeal to ridicule. Seems I was being generous when I called you an idiot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it strange that someone who thinks he has it all figured out, plays his best hand with the following arguments;
a) Weather is the same as climate. Weather in the distant future is impossible to predict. Therefore, climate is impossible to predict.
b) Scientists predicted cooling in the middle part of last century. They were wrong. Scientists must therefore be wrong about AGW.
c) There is a global conspiracy to fabricate evidence to support the theory of AGW. This conspiracy involves thousands of scientists from most countries of the world. No scientist has every decided to defect with proof of the conspiracy. Big oil is helpless against this conspiracy.
d) The climate has changed naturally in the past therefore it is impossible for the current change to be caused by man.
That was the best you had. But all those "arguments" have been discussed, researched where merited and rejected. Yet despite you being an expert, you didn't know that. These arguments are not only nonsense, they are likely the most idiotic arguments against AGW, but they were the best you could come up with. You couldn't even come up with the best arguments your side has to offer. So not only are you ignorant about AGW, climate, science and logic you are also ignorant about your own pet "theory". So given that you decided to come here and stand on a soap box when you yourself believed, " Any proof offered...is simply not enough," one has to ask, what did you really think you had to offer? The only thing you have succeeded in doing is proving your own intellectual deficits. You are an embarrassment to any nation's formal education system.